12
   

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

 
 
Builder
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2024 05:26 am
@hightor,
Quote:
it's not as if she were just declared the official candidate; her nomination had to be voted on by the party delegates.


And when did that happen? It quite simply didn't happen.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2024 05:45 am
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2024 06:01 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:
And when did that happen?
Harris officially claimed the nomination following a five-day online voting process, receiving 4,563 delegate votes out of 4,615 cast, or about 99% of participating delegates.
Votes were released on August 5.

Builder wrote:
It quite simply didn't happen.

It simply proves what you are.
Builder
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2024 06:12 am
@Walter Hinteler,


Harris Officially Secures Democratic Party’s Nomination for President

The vice president won 99 percent of participating delegates in an unusual, virtual roll call vote that concluded Monday, the party said.

Kamala Harris steps onto a stage at a campaign rally, with a large U.S. flag behind her. Behind her, people fill the seats in an arena.
Vice President Kamala Harris earned the support of 99 percent of the 4,567 delegates who cast ballots, the Democratic National Committee said.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times
Nicholas Nehamas

By Nicholas Nehamas

Reporting from Washington

Aug. 6, 2024

Vice President Kamala Harris has secured the Democratic nomination for president, becoming the first woman of color to win a major party’s nomination and officially setting up her matchup against former President Donald J. Trump.

Ms. Harris, 59, earned the support of 99 percent of the 4,567 delegates who cast ballots, the Democratic National Committee said in a statement late Monday. In an unusual move meant to avoid potential legal headaches, the roll call was held virtually over five days, instead of in-person at the Democratic National Convention, which begins on Aug. 19 in Chicago.

The convention’s secretary, Jason Rae, must certify the results of the roll call before Ms. Harris and her soon-to-be-announced running mate accept the nomination.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/06/us/politics/kamala-harris-president-campaign-2024.html

Yeah, it all looks hunky dory, eh?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2024 07:10 am
@Builder,
Anyway, the way in which political parties worldwide make their choice for candidates is determined by their own internal rules and procedures.

And not how Builder wants it to be done.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2024 09:31 am
The Washington Post and LA Times refused to endorse a candidate. Why? Margaret Sullivan

The choice for president has seldom been starker.

On one side is Donald Trump, a felonious and twice-impeached conman, raring to finish off the job of dismantling American democracy. On the other is Kamala Harris, a capable and experienced leader who stands for traditional democratic principles.

Nevertheless – and shockingly – the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post have decided to sit this one out. Both major news organizations, each owned by a billionaire, announced this week that their editorial boards would not make a presidential endorsement, despite their decades-long traditions of doing so.

There’s no other way to see this other than as an appalling display of cowardice and a dereliction of their public duty.

At the Los Angeles Times, the decision rests clearly with Patrick Soon-Shiong, who bought the ailing paper in 2018, raising great hopes of a resurgence there.

At the Post (where I was the media columnist from 2016 to 2022), the editorial page editor David Shipley said he owned the decision, but it clearly came from above – specifically from the publisher, Will Lewis, the veteran of Rupert Murdoch’s media properties, hand-picked last year by the paper’s owner, Jeff Bezos. Was Bezos himself the author of this abhorrent decision? Maybe not, but it could not have come as a surprise.

All of this may look like nonpartisan neutrality, or be intended to, but it’s far from that. For one thing, it’s a shameful smackdown of both papers’ reporting and opinion-writing staffs who have done important work exposing Trump’s dangers for many years.

It’s also a strong statement of preference. The papers’ leaders have made it clear that they either want Trump (who is, after all, a boon to large personal fortunes) or that they don’t wish to risk the ex-president’s wrath and retribution if he wins. If the latter was a factor, it’s based on a shortsighted judgment, since Trump has been a hazard to press rights and would only be emboldened in a second term.

“Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage,” the wrote former Washington Post editor Marty Baron on Friday on X, blasting the Post’s decision. He predicted that Trump would see this as an invitation to try further to intimidate Bezos, a dynamic detailed in Baron’s 2023 book Collision of Power.

The editorials editor at the Los Angeles Times, Mariel Garza, resigned this week over the owner’s decision to kill off the editorial board’s planned endorsement of Harris.

“I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent,” Garza told Columbia Journalism Review’s editor, Sewell Chan. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”

Others, including a Pulitzer prize-winning editorial writer at the California paper, followed her principled lead. The Washington Post editor at large Robert Kagan resigned in protest, too. They do so at considerable personal cost, since there are so few similar positions in today’s financially troubled media industry.

With the most consequential election of the modern era only days away, the silence is deafening
Some news organizations upheld their duty and remained true to their mission.

The New York Times endorsed Harris last month, calling her “the only patriotic choice for president”, and writing that Trump “has proved himself morally unfit for an office that asks its occupant to put the good of the nation above self-interest”.

The Guardian, too, strongly endorsed Harris, saying she would “unlock democracy’s potential, not give in to its flaws”, and calling Trump a “transactional and corrupting politician”.

Meanwhile, the Murdoch-controlled New York Post has endorsed Trump. Although that decision lacks a moral core, it’s far from surprising.

But the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post decisions are, in their way, far worse.

They constitute “an abdication”, said Jelani Cobb, dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. (I run an ethics center and teach there.)

The refusal to endorse, he told me, “tacitly equalizes two wildly distinct candidates, one of whom has tried to overturn a presidential election and one of whom has not”.

As for the message this refusal sends to the public? It’s ugly.

Readers will reasonably conclude that the newspapers were intimidated. And people will fairly question, Cobb said, when else they “have chosen expediency over courage”.

This is no moment to stand at the sidelines – shrugging, speechless and self-interested.

With the most consequential election of the modern era only days away, the silence is deafening.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2024 10:05 am
@blatham,
Quote:
Dear Guardian readers,

This week, two of America’s largest newspapers declined to endorse a candidate for president in this election. The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post both have a tradition of issuing editorial endorsements, but in this most consequential of contests for our country, they have chosen to sit on the sidelines of democracy and not alienate any candidate.

Something these two papers have in common? They both have billionaire owners who could face retaliation in a Trump presidency.

It has never been clearer that media ownership matters to democracy. The Guardian is not billionaire-owned, nor do we have shareholders. We are supported by readers and owned by the Scott Trust, which guarantees our editorial independence in perpetuity. Nobody influences our journalism. We are fiercely independent and accountable only to you, our readers.

The stakes of this election could not be higher. Fearless journalism and an informed public are bedrocks of our democracy, and it is an abdication of our duty as journalists to sit out this election out of self-interest. A Guardian editorial strongly endorsed Kamala Harris for president earlier this week – and we are unafraid of any potential consequences.

We need to raise $2m in order to keep up our momentum next year and hold the new administration to account – whoever is in the White House. Please help protect the truly free press by contributing to the Guardian today.

Yours,

Betsy Reed
Editor, Guardian US
The Guardian
bobsal u1553115
 
  4  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2024 10:42 am
At the newspaper who's motto is: Democracy Dies In Darkness". Bezos just flipped the switch off.

https://i.imgur.com/B0SXlLV.png
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2024 02:46 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
Something these two papers have in common? They both have billionaire owners who could face retaliation in a Trump presidency.

It has never been clearer that media ownership matters to democracy. The Guardian is not billionaire-owned, nor do we have shareholders. We are supported by readers and owned by the Scott Trust, which guarantees our editorial independence in perpetuity. Nobody influences our journalism. We are fiercely independent and accountable only to you, our readers.

Yes! Each morning when I begin my survey of news/opinions, my first two stops (TPM and Guardian) are both high quality sources and which are reader supported.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2024 03:50 pm
Note that this was from about 24 hours ago

Quote:
Carlos@TheMayaka
22h
A friend who works for #WaPo marketing dept says there's a #WaPoMeltDown in their business unit following the news as digital subscriptions cancellations have hit 60k barely 8 hrs after decision not to endorse. Cancellation rate is unprecedented and we're barely 24 hours into it.

Region Philbis
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2024 04:07 pm
@blatham,

play stupid games, win stupid prizes...
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Oct, 2024 04:32 pm
@Region Philbis,
A few months after Bezos bought the paper, I asked Greg Sargent if he or his colleagues had noted any change in editorial slant. He said Bezos appeared to be completely hands off in that sphere. It seems to me that a turning point came when Bezos (or his WP team) hired William Lewis as CEO. Lewis was, as most know, part of Murdoch's operations in England. Subsequently, Lewis also brought in a number of other people from that world. In short order, Greg and Paul Waldman and a significant number of other very good reporters were let go while people like Eric Erickson were retained.

I really don't have any good sense of what Bezos thinks about all this. I don't know if he originally bought the paper to influence opinion within government and the American population of whether he picked it up as something like a status-enhancing toy. But what seems important is that the WP is an insignificant piece (economically speaking) of his operations. It's Amazon and Blue Origin and government contracts which involve the big money. He could quite probably let go of this toy and or have it lose more money without serious economic damage.

But I'd be very interested in how the Lewis hire came about.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2024 12:32 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter said;
Quote:
And not how Builder wants it to be done.


Quote:
Ms. Harris, 59, earned the support of 99 percent of the 4,567 delegates who cast ballots


So, you're telling me that you believe that claim above?

Mind blowing how gullible you could be.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2024 01:18 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:
So, you're telling me that you believe that claim above?
Yes.

Builder wrote:
Mind blowing how gullible you could be.
I hope, you survive.
Builder
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2024 01:45 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
I hope, you survive.


The comma is interesting, but I guess English is your second language.
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2024 01:56 am
@Builder,
It is one of his other languages. Now I wish you would try to conquer English. Perhaps your posts wouldn't be so incoherent and laughable. Nighty night Builder.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2024 02:49 am
Quote:
Beginning in 1943, the War Department published a series of pamphlets for U.S. Army personnel in the European theater of World War II. Titled Army Talks, the series was designed “to help [the personnel] become better-informed men and women and therefore better soldiers.”

On March 24, 1945, the topic for the week was “FASCISM!”

“You are away from home, separated from your families, no longer at a civilian job or at school and many of you are risking your very lives,” the pamphlet explained, “because of a thing called fascism.” But, the publication asked, what is fascism? “Fascism is not the easiest thing to identify and analyze,” it said, “nor, once in power, is it easy to destroy. It is important for our future and that of the world that as many of us as possible understand the causes and practices of fascism, in order to combat it.”

Fascism, the U.S. government document explained, “is government by the few and for the few. The objective is seizure and control of the economic, political, social, and cultural life of the state.” “The people run democratic governments, but fascist governments run the people.”

“The basic principles of democracy stand in the way of their desires; hence—democracy must go! Anyone who is not a member of their inner gang has to do what he’s told. They permit no civil liberties, no equality before the law.” “Fascism treats women as mere breeders. ‘Children, kitchen, and the church,’ was the Nazi slogan for women,” the pamphlet said.

Fascists “make their own rules and change them when they choose…. They maintain themselves in power by use of force combined with propaganda based on primitive ideas of ‘blood’ and ‘race,’ by skillful manipulation of fear and hate, and by false promise of security. The propaganda glorifies war and insists it is smart and ‘realistic’ to be pitiless and violent.”

Fascists understood that “the fundamental principle of democracy—faith in the common sense of the common people—was the direct opposite of the fascist principle of rule by the elite few,” it explained, “[s]o they fought democracy…. They played political, religious, social, and economic groups against each other and seized power while these groups struggled.”

Americans should not be fooled into thinking that fascism could not come to America, the pamphlet warned; after all, “[w]e once laughed Hitler off as a harmless little clown with a funny mustache.” And indeed, the U.S. had experienced “sorry instances of mob sadism, lynchings, vigilantism, terror, and suppression of civil liberties. We have had our hooded gangs, Black Legions, Silver Shirts, and racial and religious bigots. All of them, in the name of Americanism, have used undemocratic methods and doctrines which…can be properly identified as ‘fascist.’”

The War Department thought it was important for Americans to understand the tactics fascists would use to take power in the United States. They would try to gain power “under the guise of ‘super-patriotism’ and ‘super-Americanism.’” And they would use three techniques:

First, they would pit religious, racial, and economic groups against one another to break down national unity. Part of that effort to divide and conquer would be a “well-planned ‘hate campaign’ against minority races, religions, and other groups.”

Second, they would deny any need for international cooperation, because that would fly in the face of their insistence that their supporters were better than everyone else. “In place of international cooperation, the fascists seek to substitute a perverted sort of ultra-nationalism which tells their people that they are the only people in the world who count. With this goes hatred and suspicion toward the people of all other nations.”

Third, fascists would insist that “the world has but two choices—either fascism or communism, and they label as ‘communists’ everyone who refuses to support them.”

It is “vitally important” to learn to spot native fascists, the government said, “even though they adopt names and slogans with popular appeal, drape themselves with the American flag, and attempt to carry out their program in the name of the democracy they are trying to destroy.”

The only way to stop the rise of fascism in the United States, the document said, “is by making our democracy work and by actively cooperating to preserve world peace and security.” In the midst of the insecurity of the modern world, the hatred at the root of fascism “fulfills a triple mission.” By dividing people, it weakens democracy. “By getting men to hate rather than to think,” it prevents them “from seeking the real cause and a democratic solution to the problem.” By falsely promising prosperity, it lures people to embrace its security.

“Fascism thrives on indifference and ignorance,” it warned. Freedom requires “being alert and on guard against the infringement not only of our own freedom but the freedom of every American. If we permit discrimination, prejudice, or hate to rob anyone of his democratic rights, our own freedom and all democracy is threatened.”

hcr
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2024 03:19 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:
The comma is interesting, but I guess English is your second language.
I forgot that this is the grammar improvement thread.
I would therefore like to thank you very much.

Your guess is correct. However, allow me to ask how you ranked my foreign languages?
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2024 04:13 am
@Builder,
Like being above ground is a unique experience for you.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Oct, 2024 05:45 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Note that this was from about 24 hours ago

Quote:
Carlos@TheMayaka
22h
A friend who works for #WaPo marketing dept says there's a #WaPoMeltDown in their business unit following the news as digital subscriptions cancellations have hit 60k barely 8 hrs after decision not to endorse. Cancellation rate is unprecedented and we're barely 24 hours into it.




I cancelled my subscription yesterday. Hated to do it, but hearing they were not going to endorse was punch to my stomach.

I am disgusted with Bezos. I hope the hit to the Post gets greater...and Amazon deserves whatever comes its way, too.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 01:21:56